GOP lawmaker on Social Security reform: 'It's Over'

[conjur]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/GOP_lawmaker_on_SS_reform_Its_Ove_0915.html

Roll Call reports today that Republican lawmakers are considering abandonment of the Social Security reforms that were to be the cornerstone of Bush's second-term agenda. The story, by Ben Pershing and Emily Pierce, quotes "one Senior Republican lawmaker," as saying flatly, "It's over." Excerpts follow:
#

Fearful that tackling Social Security reform could cripple his party in the 2006 elections, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) plans to recommend to his fellow leaders that they shelve the issue for the remainder of the 109th Congress.

"Reynolds told [Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill] Thomas that he would recommend to the leaders that we not proceed with Social Security this year because it did not appear there was any chance it would be passed into law by the Senate, and we'd be forcing our vulnerables to walk to the plank for nothing," said a source familiar with Reynolds' comments.

While Reynolds made reference only to not doing Social Security this year, the source said it was widely understood that "if it doesn't happen now, it's not happening in 2007."

...

Reynolds strong desire to abandon Social Security reform is reflective of widespread nervousness among GOP campaign strategists about how the issue will play out next November. Republican sources said that the results of the party's internal polling and focus groups on Social Security have made the GOP's political operatives nervous about proceeding, especially since the party's approval ratings and generic ballot performance are already low.
#

The full, registration-restricted story is available at Roll Call.

There goes that political capital from that mandate swirling right on down the drain.

The public didn't buy into the "ownership" propaganda and apparently saw through the charade of the hand-picked audiences on the propaganda tour.

Now, if only the Democratic Party would come up with some sound alternatives as a party instead of individuals offering up solutions maybe we can get somewhere and fix the ills.

 

[OrByte]

I think its time for other repub politicians to step up and start talking to God again..

they need to get back to THE MESSAGE!! before its too late!

 

[GTaudiophile]

God damn it! If you think reform is right, then fvcking get the debate going. Start thinking of options. Start listening to recommendations. Fvck this BS of worrying about re-election during your entire term. People don't elect politicians to Washington to worry about getting elected. People elect them to get sh!t done!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
God damn it! If you think reform is right, then fvcking get the debate going. Start thinking of options. Start listening to recommendations. Fvck this BS of worrying about re-election during your entire term. People don't elect politicians to Washington to worry about getting elected. People elect them to get sh!t done!

I have forgotten which Senator said it, possibly Sen. Byrd, but he said that members of the Senate don't do much in the way of legislating anymore. They have to spend a good portion of each day working on fundraising for the next election.

Institute one-time, 6-8 year terms with no re-elections. Force these ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES to actually REPRESENT those that ELECTED them.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Sweet, so our country is going to go bankrupt if we don't raise our SS taxes by 50%. Yay!

I don't see why people hate privitization so much. You get more benefits with a lower risk. Plus you can pass it on to your children. Not to mention the inflow of capital that would help out businesses.

I wish Congress had enough balls to pass SS reform (not just raising taxes to fund it).

Also, you would think that the fact that the Republican party is associated with Bush would be enough to "cripple his party in the 2006 election."

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
God damn it! If you think reform is right, then fvcking get the debate going. Start thinking of options. Start listening to recommendations. Fvck this BS of worrying about re-election during your entire term. People don't elect politicians to Washington to worry about getting elected. People elect them to get sh!t done!

I have forgotten which Senator said it, possibly Sen. Byrd, but he said that members of the Senate don't do much in the way of legislating anymore. They have to spend a good portion of each day working on fundraising for the next election.

Institute one-time, 6-8 year terms with no re-elections. Force these ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES to actually REPRESENT those that ELECTED them.

And therein lies the rub... I'd be all for term limits if my senator and my congressman weren't two of the most senior and powerful members of the congress. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but I'm pretty sure my state gets back 8 federal dollars for every dollar we pay in taxes. Why would I want to limit that?

Hell... there are people in this state that want to keep Ted Stevens' brain alive in a jar after his body dies just so we can keep sending him back to Washington.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
God damn it! If you think reform is right, then fvcking get the debate going. Start thinking of options. Start listening to recommendations. Fvck this BS of worrying about re-election during your entire term. People don't elect politicians to Washington to worry about getting elected. People elect them to get sh!t done!

I have forgotten which Senator said it, possibly Sen. Byrd, but he said that members of the Senate don't do much in the way of legislating anymore. They have to spend a good portion of each day working on fundraising for the next election.

Institute one-time, 6-8 year terms with no re-elections. Force these ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES to actually REPRESENT those that ELECTED them.

And therein lies the rub... I'd be all for term limits if my senator and my congressman weren't two of the most senior and powerful members of the congress. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but I'm pretty sure my state gets back 8 federal dollars for every dollar we pay in taxes. Why would I want to limit that?

Hell... there are people in this state that want to keep Ted Stevens' brain alive in a jar after his body dies just so we can keep sending him back to Washington.

Dasm, you live in a big ole socialist state, don't you?

Oh, and to be honest, I would have liked to have personal accounts. I've said that since 23 years old (now 36) that I would sign my rights to SS away if I could have "my" money to invest as I see fit. The older I get (closer to retirement), the more the choice fades as time will run out. Regardless, there seems to be a future shortfall that will need to be solved one way or another.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
God damn it! If you think reform is right, then fvcking get the debate going. Start thinking of options. Start listening to recommendations. Fvck this BS of worrying about re-election during your entire term. People don't elect politicians to Washington to worry about getting elected. People elect them to get sh!t done!

we'll wait another 40 yrs til it's bankrupt, like the airlines, before we get around to changing it. people don't like change, that's just a way of life

 

[Moonbeam]

2000 a year from birth to age 18 for every new citizen invested by and from the government say the S&P. Should work out to a million or so by age 65.

 

[Rainsford]

The Republicans are simply better than the Dems at getting elected. They don't follow through any more or accomplish anything better, but they are masters at promising the right things. They promised to nationally beat down the gays, protect Podunk, Texas from terrorism, and revamp social security. Their base flocked to the voting booths and gave them a landslide 3% margin of victory. Needless to say, protecting us from terrorism seems iffy and social security isn't looking so hot. And that whole gay marriage issue was dropped on a national level pretty quickly.

Hopefully the voters will remember all that come 2006 and 2008, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
God damn it! If you think reform is right, then fvcking get the debate going. Start thinking of options. Start listening to recommendations. Fvck this BS of worrying about re-election during your entire term. People don't elect politicians to Washington to worry about getting elected. People elect them to get sh!t done!

I have forgotten which Senator said it, possibly Sen. Byrd, but he said that members of the Senate don't do much in the way of legislating anymore. They have to spend a good portion of each day working on fundraising for the next election.

Institute one-time, 6-8 year terms with no re-elections. Force these ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES to actually REPRESENT those that ELECTED them.

Term limits are undemocratic. It limits your choices. Term limits basically says the voters are too stupid to elect the most qualified person to represent them. Public financing and nonpartisan congressional districts can help level the playing field. With 1 term limits like what you propose, we would get a bunch of noobs every term which may give unelected political aides and lobbyists more power to "persuade" and "mold" legislation. Plus, I would agrue that these 1 termers are lame ducks who would only want "immediate results" i.e. pork so they can springboard to their next political office instead any longer term visons or goals.
BTW, something needs to be done about SS and Medicare. Al Gore was on the right track with the lockbox that everyone laughed at. GWB has failed as is typical.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The Republicans are simply better than the Dems at getting elected. They don't follow through any more or accomplish anything better, but they are masters at promising the right things. They promised to nationally beat down the gays, protect Podunk, Texas from terrorism, and revamp social security. Their base flocked to the voting booths and gave them a landslide 3% margin of victory. Needless to say, protecting us from terrorism seems iffy and social security isn't looking so hot. And that whole gay marriage issue was dropped on a national level pretty quickly.

Hopefully the voters will remember all that come 2006 and 2008, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I agree. Ohio may be hemorrhaging jobs and paying $3/gallon for gas but damned if them gays will get married.

 

[Vic]

No surprise. I never for one moment thought the SS reform would go through. It was a highly flawed concept, which I said months ago while it was being debated. I figured it would just be allowed to die.

Originally posted by: chowderhead
I agree. Ohio may be hemorrhaging jobs and paying $3/gallon for gas but damned if them gays will get married.

Heh. Logic is obviously not your strong suit. I don't disagree necessarily, I just found your statement amusing. So many fallacies all wrapped in one tight little package.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Vic
No surprise. I never for one moment thought the SS reform would go through. It was a highly flawed concept, which I said months ago while it was being debated. I figured it would just be allowed to die.

Originally posted by: chowderhead
I agree. Ohio may be hemorrhaging jobs and paying $3/gallon for gas but damned if them gays will get married.

Heh. Logic is obviously not your strong suit. I don't disagree necessarily, I just found your statement amusing. So many fallacies all wrapped in one tight little package.

Well, maybe but Bush is now polling 31% or so in Ohio.